DIGEST
G.R. No. 71049 May 29, 1987
BERNARDINO JIMENEZ, petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF MANILA and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, respondents.
Facts:
The evidence of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) shows that in
the morning of August 15, 1974 he, together with his
neighbors, went to Sta. Ana public market to buy "bagoong"
at the time when the public market was flooded with ankle
deep rainwater. After purchasing the "bagoong" he turned
around to return home but he stepped on an uncovered open-
ing which could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater,
causing a dirty and rusty four-inch nail, stuck inside the
uncovered opening, to pierce the left leg of plaintiff-petitioner
penetrating to... a depth of about one and a half inches.
Issues:
The lone assignment of error raised in this petition is on
whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not
ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly and
severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the
injuries petitioner... suffered.
Ruling:
Respondent City of Manila maintains that it cannot be held
liable for the injuries sustained by the petitioner because
under the Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic
Integrated Corporation assumed all responsibility for
damages which may be suffered by third persons for... any
cause attributable to it.
It has also been argued that the City of Manila cannot be held
liable under Article I, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409
Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines which provides that:
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person
by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings and other public works under their control
or... supervision."
In other words, Art. 1, sec. 4, R.A. No. 409 refers to liability
arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the object,
thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil Code governs liability
due to "defective streets,... public buildings and other public
works" in particular and is therefore decisive on this specific
case. What said article requires is that the province, city or
municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public
building in question. In the case at bar, there is no question
that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management and
Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic
Integrated Corporation remained under the control of the
former.
The contention of respondent City of Manila that petitioner
should not have ventured to go to Sta. Ana Public Market
during a stormy weather is indeed untenable. There is no
argument that it is the duty of the City of Manila to exercise
reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe
for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs.
Principles:
Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no
openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that
they were adequately covered. Had the opening been
covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the
negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate... cause of
the injury suffered, the City is therefore liable for the injury
suffered by the petitioner.